June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

In the not too distant future, all the primary elections will be concluded.  

In the not too distant future, all the results will be known.  

By then, the May meeting of the rules committee will have taken place, and we are likely to have a sufficient number of superdelegates (even counting Michigan and Florida) to have pledged their support to an established nominee who must then focus on defeating McCain.

So this is my pledge:

I will support the nominee and oppose McCain, no matter who it is.  

Though I may post suggestions and ideas as to who would make the best running mate, I will not base my support for the nominee on which running mate is chosen.

I will support the nominee and let go of whatever anger and frustration I had that that nominee was not my first (or, in my case, even my second) choice.

I will post no diaries attacking the nominee, though I may, as I've done all along, post diaries criticizing certain stances or positions.

I will post no diaries attacking one not nominated, though I may, as I've done all along, post diaries criticizing certain stances or positions.

I will not mock the supporters of the losing side (though I reserve the right to mock those whom I perceive as right-wing trolls, or anyone who will sit this election out or vote for McCain).

If I think that the nominee has a weakness among certain demographics, I will try to find ways to bridge the gap with those demographics instead of moan about how badly we're going to do among them.

I will not recommend any diaries which violate the above pledge.

Who's with me?

Tags: Presidential Race (all tags)

Comments

238 Comments

Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

I am. The 4th's my birthday, too!

by Mandoliniment 2008-05-26 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal


Sorry if this is off topic but I'm not sure that I will be able to post on the fourth so an early Happy Birthday Mandoliniment!
(Hope you see this.)

12 dogs.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-05-26 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Oh and Mandoliniment.

Thank you for your kind words on my diary earlier in the primary. Everytime another fuss starts in a comment section of a diary advocating folks get along, you are one of the people I think of who have been kind. We are getting rain by the way. Hopefully we will avoid the terrible drought conditions that we had last year. 12dogs

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-05-26 01:24PM | 0 recs
Whomever wins, won.

That goes both ways. If Clinton gets Michigan and Florida seated as is, there's a superdelegate swing, and the nomination is hers, that's a win. Its not stealing the election; its a win as provided for in the rules.

Likewise, if Obama keeps the delegate lead and crosses the 50% threshold, wherever that may be after the two states in question are worked out, that's a win fair and square as provided for in the rules.

So whoever wins, I'm with you. I may be unhappy, I may be critical of policies, I may even despair, but my dialogue and my actions will be for the positive, to elect the democratic nominee.

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-05-26 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Whomever wins, won.

Yes, that would be the point.  Julie didn't say "Obama"; she said "nominee".

by doktarr 2008-05-26 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Whomever wins, won.

Exactly. I'm agreeing with Julie, not arguing. Thanks for the diary, Julie, it's spot on.

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-05-26 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Whomever wins, won.

I like your comment

but hillary can still win if she gets her delegates in Michigan and Florida.  Obama didn't get a single vote in Michigan so he can he win the state in November if he couldn't get any votes in January?

The supers can choose whoever they want and they are holding out for hillary.  She's the more electable.

by HillsMyGirl 2008-05-26 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Whomever wins, won.

you do remember, that by the rules of the MI primary, if people had voted for Obama, their votes wouldn't have counted, right?

by 2501 2008-05-26 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Whomever wins, won.

Highly hypocritical statement.  Wow.  

This place is beyond nuts.  

by tibbs 2008-05-26 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Whomever wins, won.

He wasn't on the ballot, therefore making it difficult for people to pull the lever/ press the touch-screen button/ punch the chad for him.

by blinkingidiot 2008-05-26 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Whomever wins, won.

If Florida and Michigan are seated without a penalty, that is a huge loss for the Democratic Party.

It will be clear then that the white people can still change the rules to suit themselves at the end of the game, if the black guy by some miracle or mistake is winning.  

I have lots of Republican friends who actually support Obama this year.  They're really pissed off at the weakness of the Democratic Party.  Would they be changing the rules for Obama if the candidates' positions were reversed?  Hardly.

No, if the FL and MI delegates are seated as is, this will be a travesty for the party.

by tibbs 2008-05-26 02:09PM | 0 recs
She can not win without supers. Period.

In fact, neither can.

After Friday's serious statement, I don't expect supers to be swinging her way, any time soon.  It is what it is.

Obama will prevail in the end.

by tracey webb 2008-05-26 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Agreed.  And I think the party as a whole will begin doing the same at that point.

by map 2008-05-26 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Don't worry, after the nomination is settled, the HillaryIs44 trolls will be banned if they continue to spew their filth on here.

by NJIndependent 2008-05-26 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Don't worry about them... they are actual a very small group of people that just happens to stir up a lot of hate.  Some of them will come to their senses, while others never were democrats to begin with.
by neonplaque 2008-05-26 09:12AM | 0 recs
Looking through your comments,...

I notice that you've been banging this "banning" drum for a while now.

Are you an official member of the banning police?

by Ed J 2008-05-26 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Looking through your comments,...

Do you have a problem with this idea?

That anyone who attacks the Dem nominee on a DEMOCRATIC site could get banned?

Read the guidelines for the site. It is pretty clear on this.

by JDF 2008-05-26 12:11PM | 0 recs
If you think that after all these months...

of Obama supporters calling Hillary Clinton everything from "bitch" to "racist", that the moment he ekes out the nod for the nomination everyone will bow down and reach to touch the hem of his garment, you're kidding yourself.

by Ed J 2008-05-26 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: If you think that after all these months...

"bow down and reach to touch the hem of his garment"

"hem of his garment"

Lol, Dante. "What tho' the field be lost, all is not lost. Immortal hate." Lol.

by catilinus 2008-05-26 01:33PM | 0 recs
crappiest comment ever

on the par with if "hillary wins, do you want Obama supporters to kiss her ring after bad mouthing him all this time?"

how do you like this comment?

by kindthoughts 2008-05-26 02:32PM | 0 recs
Judging by the comments of Obama's...

most "enthusiastic" followers, I think any self-respecting candidate could do without their votes.

Therefore, I think your comment is just fine.

by Ed J 2008-05-26 02:43PM | 0 recs
Because the Clinton camps hands are clean...

Get off of this indignant righteousness already...

The Clinton camp has dished it out just as well.

Enough of this self-pity.

by jaywillie 2008-05-26 02:45PM | 0 recs
No, in fact, they haven't...

"dished it out as well".

And as to "self-pity", I don't see where you perceive that in my comment.

Or should you have said "petulant bitchery" as you did in a previous comment on this site?

As I said above, were I a candidate, I wouldn't want your vote.

by Ed J 2008-05-26 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking through your comments,...

No, I am not, but the kind of vile filth that the Clinton Smear Machine has been spewing on here for months will be clearly against the guidelines of this site as soon as the nomination is settled.  We just have to run out the clock on the alegrebots.  They'll be gone soon enough.

by NJIndependent 2008-05-26 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking through your comments,...

And then what will we have? Self patting kumbhaya?

You talk like Obama is another Bush.

by Sandeep 2008-05-26 08:41PM | 0 recs
No thank you.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: No thank you.

Get out troll..... haven't you earned enough McCain points today?

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-26 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: No thank you.

Looks like some folks just won't know what to do with themselves if they give up bickering.

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-05-26 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: No thank you.

So true.  Their life and welcome to it.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-05-26 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Agreed.

by interestedbystander 2008-05-26 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Let's see.

You realize that Obama's chances of winning the nomination are exceedingly good.

You assert that you will support the nominee "whoever it may be", and obviously expect that Hillary supporters will be obliged to do so, no matter how Obama, his campaign, and his supporters might slime her and them from now until June.

That all sounds really, really sincere of you, doesn't it?

by frankly0 2008-05-26 09:18AM | 0 recs
But "frankly", we're all just

dumbass white racists who can't see BS even when it sits up and bites us.

Hmmm, now how was it that I earned my JD????

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: But "frankly", we're all just

Having a JD doesn't excuse the behavior you exhibit on here.

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-26 09:24AM | 0 recs
Actually "argument" makes a

good attorney.  But I'm sure you can't see that.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually "argument" makes a

I'm an engineer.. so telling me about your JD is hardly going to impress me.

Whether or not your are a good attorney (or even an attorney at all) is irrelevant here.  All that matters is the substance of your arguments and your decorum.. you've fallen short on both counts.

There are plenty of strong, passionate clinton supporters here who do Hillary credit... you do a disservice to those strong supporters

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-26 09:53AM | 0 recs
So YOU say. Others think differently.

And yes, I am an attorney admitted in NY and CT.  And when it comes to one area of my practice - asylum law - I have never lost a case.  FYI.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: So YOU say. Others think differently.

I, too, have never lost a case in asylum law.  Nor have I ever dined poorly in Madagascar, nor had a poor experience surfing in Antarctica.

by deminva 2008-05-26 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: So YOU say. Others think differently.

You need to see a shrink.  Who goes on bragging about that shit on a blog, seriously.  You need some help.

by Deadalus 2008-05-26 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: So YOU say. Others think differently.

With the lines that poster has already spit out combined with that little gem, I think he's firmly in "lying his ass off" mode.

Remind me to never hire an attorney with as much free blog commenting time as that guy has.

by upstate girl 2008-05-26 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: So YOU say. Others think differently.

Someone's insecure.

by terra 2008-05-26 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: So YOU say. Others think differently.

You lost this one. Badly.

And don't get me started on my lawyer jokes...

by duende 2008-05-26 11:39AM | 0 recs
Huh

I don't believe any of this.  You're here way way way too much to have that kind of life.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-05-26 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: So YOU say. Others think differently.

Does blogsurfing count as billable time and, if so, where do I join your firm?

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-26 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: So YOU say. Others think differently.

Wow, never lost a case, huh?  Is that because you've never tried one?  You'll excuse me if this is sounding less and less logical.  Even the best attorneys lose cases - the best attorneys get the most difficult cases, with the worst facts.

by auronrenouille 2008-05-26 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: So YOU say. Others think differently.

Hah!  Asylum law?  So you've litigated like what, 3 cases?

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-26 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Actually "argument" makes a

Then you should also realize that you don't "argue"

You troll, and whine, and moan, and bitch, and complain, and insult, and belittle... thats not arguing... and in a courtroom they would charge you with contempt.

by JDF 2008-05-26 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: But "frankly", we're all just

It doesn't really excuse the site admins allowing it either; but seeing as it's not my site, I guess it's not up to me.

by rb608 2008-05-26 04:13PM | 0 recs
So what I'm getting here...

...is that someone was mean on the internet and therefore staying in Iraq, endangering the judicial branch, neutering the majority legislature we've finally gotten back, and continuing our current economic 'policies' is okay.

That right?

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-05-26 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: So what I'm getting here...


Yeah, I think that covers it.

It's called 'spite' because they didn't get what they wanted; and it's not lacking with many regulars here.

by neonplaque 2008-05-26 09:38AM | 0 recs
LOL - you poor lemmings.

IF you ever wanted to consider "thinking" you would take the build-up-of-wax out of your ears and realize that BO's trouble signs are all squarely in front of you...but you choose to disregard.

So don't turn around and blame us when your guy loses, as he will, in November.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL - you poor lemmings.

I won't claim Obama doesn't have trouble signs. He sure as hell does. That may mean he's the worse nominee, but if he nonetheless is the nominee then failure to support him, or rather failure to materially oppose John McCain, is a betrayal of your party, your nation, feminism, and Hillary.

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-05-26 09:48AM | 0 recs
Bahhhh Wahhhhh.

And, what has BO ever done to EARN our votes?  

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Bahhhh Wahhhhh.

Oh come now, you're educated on the candidates; you know that's a rhetorical question and that the answers I can give you won't be sufficient for you, so instead I offer this:

What has he done to earn your votes? He's not John McCain. I'm not asking you to vote for him based on what he will do, since that's an argument of theoreticals and you don't trust the man. No evidence I can give you will change that, or the rancor would have died down long ago. I'm asking you to vote for him based on what we know John McCain will do.

If the Democratic party runs a shoebox full of dirt for the office of President, it will be less destructive than the policies McCain is advocating. So if you hate BO's supporters and you don't trust BO and he hasn't earned your vote, fine. McCain has still earned your opposition.

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-05-26 10:08AM | 0 recs
I disagree. BO has earned my

opposition.  McCain has done nothing.

Sadly I am thisclose to actually thinking positively about McCain.  What's stopping me?  Well....one more really stupid and hate-filled reaction to anything HRC does from Obama and his Fans will probably push me over that edge.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree. BO has earned my

So what you're telling me is you're an identity voter rather than an issue voter, is that correct?

The only reasons to vote for Hillary, against BO, and not against McCain that I can think of are based on anger for the perception that he's hurt a candidate you identify with and believe in. All the issues that I know of put McCain in starcker opposition to HRC.

If not anger over the process (which Bill Clinton himself called a 'contact sport'), what are your issues which Obama has earned opposition over and McCain has not?

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-05-26 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree. BO has earned my

God, you are whiney.

by kasjogren 2008-05-26 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree. BO has earned my

Hillary Clinton ate my baby.

There. Go vote for McCain. You live in New York or Connecticut. It doesn't matter.

by terra 2008-05-26 10:37AM | 0 recs
I don't live in NY or CT...I live in a swing

state and my law practice is federal...hence my NY and CT licenses apply.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 10:59AM | 0 recs
Gosh

Is there anything about you that's NOT important?

Here's the official word: the Obama coalition doesn't need you. Vote for McCain in November. Have all your asylum clients and all the supermodels you date vote for McCain as well.

Like the 20% of voters in KY who didn't vote for Obama because he was black, we do not want your vote.

by Cochrane 2008-05-26 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree. BO has earned my

Good go support McCain. Goodbye and Good Riddance.

by JDF 2008-05-26 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree. BO has earned my

Well here you go: screw off.

If you're willing to waste your vote for the American president on personality politics, you're a jackass.  You should be posting on the US Weekly website instead.

by BlueInBoston 2008-05-26 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Bahhhh Wahhhhh.

What has Hillary ever done to earn anyone's votes?  Since the majority of people have voted for Obama, you think she'd be making a special effort to reach out if she TRULY thinks she can be the nominee (and is not, for example, in it to raise money to pay off her substantial debts).

by ihaveseenenough 2008-05-26 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Bahhhh Wahhhhh.

So glad to have the pleasure of reading a clairvoyant on the blogs....

Seems to be lots of you around these days.....

At least we have the benefit of knowing the future, right?

by Deadalus 2008-05-26 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Bahhhh Wahhhhh.

Nothing.  Now piss off and don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

by NJIndependent 2008-05-26 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL - you poor lemmings.

Kudos for properly using the comparative worse!  According to some, those kudos make me an arrogant grammar troll.

by deminva 2008-05-26 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: LOL - you poor lemmings.

Mojo'd for arrogant grammar trolling.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-26 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL - you poor lemmings.

I dunno, remember, this genius is a lawyer - perhaps this is some mysterious usage of "worse" that they only test on Tri-State area bar exams.

by auronrenouille 2008-05-26 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL - you poor lemmings.

i'm an astronaut, I'm blogging from the space station.

by hootie4170 2008-05-26 10:50AM | 0 recs
No, that's just you.

by tbetz 2008-05-26 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: But "frankly", we're all just

JD, that's an advanced degree isn't it.  And you're supporting someone other than Obama?  You make under 50k a year?  He's having trouble with those voters, I understand.

I missed someone calling you a racist here, but it seems to be awfully important to you.  Thanks for sharing and elevating the debate.

by niksder 2008-05-26 06:26PM | 0 recs
Have you seen the diary list today?

Full of Obama/Assination hit pieces, and a couple of unity threads.

Thats about it.

I think they can go without there "OBAMA SAID DIS TO HILLARY ZOMG!" nonsense for a while.

by Massadonious 2008-05-26 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Assign whatever motivations you want to the poster. If you got your feelings hurt because someone was mean on the internet and now you don't want to hold hands and make kissy-face, that's your call. You don't have to act like it's ok; you don't need to pretend everyone here is your buddy.

But when it comes to your vote, that's something different. Failure to support the nominee is support for McCain, whether that nominee is Clinton 'stealing' the win with MI/FL and two-faced racial politics or Obama 'stealing' the win with undemocratic caucuses and two-faces sexist politics. Support for McCain is putting the blood of thousands of US soldiers on your hands over the next four years. Its withdrawing America from the Geneva convention. It's surrendering privacy rights. It's continuing top-down economics. It's an unbalanced budget. It's no healthcare reform of any kind. It's a neocon supreme court.

But hey, you'll send a message to the Democratic party. And what message is that? The message is: don't ever allow anyone besides a white male to make any ground in the nominating process, because if you do and that person fails to win, you've lost their demographic and the general election.

If we don't win this year, you won't see any more female candidates or black candidates for decades. You'll have simultaneously doomed the nation for four years (with ripples for 50 more) and scared the Democratic party into relegating gender politics back into its safe "pro-choice good, anti-abortion bad" box.

I don't care if you like Obama. I don't care if you like the original poster. I don't care if you like DKos, and I don't care if you like me. You can believe me when I tell you my motivations are good or you can reject them outright, but if you don't grit your teeth until they hurt, bite your tongue until it bleeds, scream bloody murder and then vote for the nominee, you're throwing a hissy fit to the detriment of your party, your country, feminism itself, and everything Hillary has ever stood for.

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-05-26 09:46AM | 0 recs
We're not buying it. You all have

a chance - still - to select the most electable and experienced candidate.  But YOU choose to drink the Kool-aide and sing Kumbaya while ignoring the facts that are in front of your noses.

So if there's any blood on anyone's hands, IT WILL BE YOUR HANDS, not mine.

I know who will end the war in Iraq; I know who will support pro-choice supremes (and I do NOT know that about BO); I know who will fight for UNIVERSAL health care; I know who will fight for equal rights and equal education for all of our children; I know who will come up with a sound energy policy (NOT Cheney's BTW...but I guess BO pressed the wrong button that day...again!); I know who will work to keep and create jobs in this country; I know who will NOT privatize SS; I know who will react with a calm head and a strong heart if we are attacked again.  AND IT'S NOT BARACK OBAMA.

You still have a choice and a chance.  Take it.  Or look at the blood on your own hands when President McCain takes office in January, 2009.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: We're not buying it. You all have

I agree with you. The chance is still there for Hillary to win. And if she does, I intend to work my ass of for her. I intend to fight tooth and nail, donate money, spread ideas, and vote in November for her. Don't call me a cultist and I won't call you a militant.

I'm not talking about right now. Right now, fight your heart out for the candidate you think is right. I'm talking after. After your candidate wins or loses, whichever happens, after she either receives the nomination or announces that she is dropping out, at that point, you need to get behind whoever the nominee is.

Fight for her now, by all means. But when that battle is done, however it concludes, vote Democrat. I will.

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-05-26 09:58AM | 0 recs
I will vote for the good of my country.

And Barack Obama does not represent that, IMHO.

And he can't re-invent himself in the next 5 months.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: I will vote for the good of my country.

If your two options are McCain and Obama then what? I realize you consider that a nightmare scenario, but supposing it happens, then what?

Whether or not you think Obama represents the good for your country, McCain represents worse.

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-05-26 10:10AM | 0 recs
I cannot vote for McCain OR Obama.

I have no choice.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: I cannot vote for McCain OR Obama.

If you stand for anything at all, that's foolish.

Even if both men represent things you are opposed to, better to limit the ground you cede.

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-05-26 10:19AM | 0 recs
No I choose to sit this one out.

Or, if things keep going downhill with Obama and Friends, I'll vote for someone other than him.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: No I choose to sit this one out.

Not a progressive call, but yours to make.

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-05-26 11:03AM | 0 recs
Thank you for understanding that it

is my vote and my call.  And I am very very progressive, still.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for understanding that it

How so, if I may ask? Progressive is of course a big tent. What would you say are the important issues to you which you feel your stance on defines you as a progressive? It's different for different people.

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-05-26 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for understanding that it

It is your call. SO go make it. Just not here.

I have no respect for people who are making that "call."

I'll go a step further you are making that "call" and hoping others will so you can point and go "see, I was right."

You want US to lose. You want the Democratic party to lose. There is no other way to see it.

by JDF 2008-05-26 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for understanding that it

If you think there is no other way to see it, well, I'm sorry for your powers of reasoning.  You may disagree, but not wanting to vote for Obama as president is not equivalent to wanting the Democratic Party to lose.

by Montague 2008-05-26 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you for understanding that it

only cowards refuse to make a choice when it is presented to them.

it you don't vote, then you have zero right to complain about the outcome of the election. just because you vote for Obama wouldn't mean you have to sit back and agree with everything he plans to do in office.

for instance, I think a great many of us plan to lobby Congress to pass a true universal health care bill of some sort, even though Obama's current plan doesn't cover everyone. I didn't think Hillary's plan with mandates was the perfect way to do it, either, but once the bill is on the president's desk, that person is going to sign it. Obama would not veto a plan that was more ambitious than the one he is proposing.

If McCain wins, though, there's no chance of us getting any kind of universal health care plan passed.

Obama isn't perfect, but he's a lot better than McCain. Once we get him elected, we still have to keep pushing--and the exact same would be true if Hillary were to be elected. She has been much too pro-war and pro-business, we'd have a lot of work to do with her as President, too--and based on their two campaigns, I'd say she would be much less likely to listen to us if she were president than Obama would be.

by 2501 2008-05-26 12:41PM | 0 recs
What do you find progressive about McCain?

I can't see any ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton voting for McCain after this joke (sic)

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

Or this comment. How about this one?

On his campaign bus recently, Sen. John McCain told reporters, "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." Although McCain said he was referring only to his prison guards, there are many reasons why his use of the word "gook" is offensive and alarming.

It is offensive because by using a racial epithet that has historically been used to demean all Asians to describe his captors, McCain failed to make a distinction between his torturers and an entire racial group.

It is alarming because a major candidate for president publicly used a racial epithet, refused to apologize for doing so and remains a legitimate contender.

How about this one?

Or this one?

As a Hillary supporter maybe you should take note of this

Hillary Clinton on Wednesday reiterated her vow to stay in the Democratic presidential race, but she said it would be a "terrible mistake" for her supporters to vote for John McCain over Barack Obama. "Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the world with the other than they do with John McCain," Clinton said on CNN's "The Situation Room."

"I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is. Obviously, I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama.


by molly bloom 2008-05-26 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: No I choose to sit this one out.

Also, I'm a bit confused.

A second ago you said you'd vote for the good of your country.

Now you say you'll sit out.

I'm not entirely sure how to reconcile those two statements. The fact that they disagree with eachother makes it sound more like an emotional knee-jerk opposition to any point I make than an actual position you stand on.

That may not be the case, but I've never seen you address any portion of McCain's platform, despite threats to vote for him and professions of your positive view of him. I'm not saying you are a troll, but I am saying that the particular points you choose to address and ignore and the way you go about it (somewhat contradictory and evasive) lend themselves to that interpretation.

You seem intelligent, and I'm willing to take you at your word about your law accomplishments, irrelevant though they may be. For that reason, I submit that perhaps you may want to change the tone and focus of your replies. Though it may not be your intent, the impression of 'trolliness' they give off may be part of the reason you get so many dismissive answers. I personally would prefer to engage with you. If you feel the same, you may want to elucidate more clearly with material examples what Obama's policies are that make allowing a McCain presidency preferable.

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-05-26 11:13AM | 0 recs
Sitting out is the only way to protest

Obama AND McCain.  Or, I can vote for Nader, which I really don't want to do.

The issue with me and McCain versus Obama is that I don't trust/know what a President Obama will do - and please, don't tell me to go read his website.  I look to the candidate to express his/her passions.  Obama has none.  He can barely talk policy without a teleprompter in front of him.

I think this country needs a really smart POTUS after Bush.  HRC is my choice.  If she is not the Dem Candidate, it will be because - IMHO - this primary has been gamed by Obama and his campaign - IN CONCERT with Dean and the elite arm of the Dem Party - a party that no longer repersents me or my vision of America.  

Obama is a poser...a lurker...always in the picture, but never out front, never leading the charge.  Even his "famous" speech resulted in not a single attempt by BO to end the war once he got into the Senate.  But then, he was so busy on day one running for his next promotion he forgot that little issue, didn't he?

I remember reading about him running into committee members on their way to a press conference about something they had just accomplished.  He said, "What's up" and they told him and he said, "Can I come along"?  They said sure - they wanted people on the podium for pictures and then he had the audacity (whoops!) to take the mic and speak as if he had been personally involved in the accomplishment.  Staffers were pissed as hell at what he did.

He lurked in CT in 2006 (never really coming out and supporting Ned Lamont).  He lurks on pro-choice (using weasel words and voting present).  He lurks on race (demanding a dialog and now saying we should all move on - pun intended!).  Condemning the Gas Tax Holiday proposal when he supported other such proposals three times.  

Where in the world does he really stand on things?  I don't know.  And I'm not willing to take a chance.

If we elect a lurker then Repugs will rule the day anyway because he lurks right as much as he lurks left.

NOT what we must have for this country if we are expected to move forward.

Plus, he has destroyed any improvements we have made in race relations since 1960.  

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Sitting out is the only way to protest

I'd be interested if you're able to find the source on the "Can I come along?" story; I've not heard it before and I'd like to see what all went down.

As for why she'll lose if she loses, you can claim the system is broken and I'd agree with you, but she won't have lost because people went around the system. I'm not claiming that BO's moves weren't political maneuvering; they absolutely were. Nonetheless, outmaneuvering your opponent politically is precisely how these things are won. As for the establishment handing it to him, he only recently bridged the giant superdelegate gap she started with. I don't think starting with that edge was unfair mind you (it's part of the system), but to claim that the establishment has been against her is a hard claim to support with meaningful evidence.

His pro-choice stance is fairly clear also. I'm sorry if you dislike the 'weasel words' as you put them and the present votes. I've seen many people here reject Planned Parenthood's vouching for the strategy, so I won't try to argue that point with you. I will say that those 'present' votes accomplished two things; they saw the desirable legislative outcome and they protected Obama and other democrats. Weasely? Maybe. Sure, why not? But if it accomplishes progressive ideals, which it did, then why not play it safe? Again, it may be all politics, but shouldn't a politician be good at politics? In terms of legislation that came past him going the right way, the record is consistent.

I don't know enough about his support or lack thereof for Ned Lamont to really discuss that with you at this point.

As for race, I've not yet heard him tell us all to move past it. He's said doesn't want it to be the main feature of his candidacy, fair enough, but he hasn't said to ignore race or stop talking about it. That's of course as far as I know; if you know of a source I'd love to see it.

I also want to address the gas tax holiday. The one's he supported in Illinois were percentage-based and were therefore yielding unforseen and un-budgeted profits to the state. That is a substantially different situation. You're smart, coyote; you know as well as I do that the gas tax holiday was just plain not going to be effective. Maybe he opposed it on principle; maybe he opposed it as a political gambit. In either case it was bad policy.

It seems difficult to argue to me that Obama happens to end up on the correct side of all these issues because of political expediency. He's subtle and skilled, which are merely different words for 'weasely and slimey', but that's all on the PR end. In terms of the results in legislation that he has the power to influence, the record is very consistent. Sometimes, such as in the case of his abortion votes, a clear-cut "yea" will be less effective, but the net result of his record is consistent.

I'd like to know how you think he's set race relations back, also, if you've got the time.

---

In conclusion, you may not like his slithery style. You may feel there are too many unknowns. Nonetheless, what we do know is that John McCain is dangerous. Even if Obama is the passive panderer you think he is, that is a less destructive President than a hawk with a short fuse.

Also, I'd still like to know what your specific political issues are. Choice seems to be one of them, based on the above post, but what else? I consider myself progressive based on my stances on healthcare, gay rights, immigration, and welfare, personally. What would you say are your main issues?

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-05-26 12:00PM | 0 recs
A leader doesn't play it safe...s/he leads.

Here's what's important to me...from another comment I posted today when I was told for the umpteenth time that I will have the blood of the world on my hands if I don't roll over and vote for BO:

"We're not buying it. YOU all have a chance - still - to select the most electable and experienced candidate.  But YOU choose to drink the Kool-aide and sing Kumbaya while ignoring the facts that are in front of your noses.

So if there's any blood on anyone's hands, IT WILL BE YOUR HANDS, not mine.

I know who will end the war in Iraq; I know who will support pro-choice supremes (and I do NOT know that about BO); I know who will fight for UNIVERSAL health care; I know who will fight for equal rights and equal education for all of our children; I know who will come up with a sound energy policy (NOT Cheney's BTW...but I guess BO pressed the wrong button that day...again!); I know who will work to keep and create jobs in this country; I know who will NOT privatize SS; I know who will react with a calm head and a strong heart if we are attacked again.  AND IT'S NOT BARACK OBAMA.

You still have a choice and a chance.  Take it.  Or look at the blood on your own hands when President McCain takes office in January, 2009.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 12:23PM | 0 recs
Here is the cite on BO taking credit...

for things he didn't do:  From the March 24, 2008 Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/03/23/AR2008032301706_ pf.html

"After weeks of arduous negotiations, on April 6, 2006, a bipartisan group of senators burst out of the "President's Room," just off the Senate chamber, with a deal on new immigration policy.

As the half-dozen senators -- including John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) -- headed to announce their plan, they met Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who made a request common when Capitol Hill news conferences are in the offing: "Hey, guys, can I come along?" And when Obama went before the microphones, he was generous with his list of senators to congratulate -- a list that included himself.

"I want to cite Lindsey Graham, Sam Brownback, Mel Martinez, Ken Salazar, myself, Dick Durbin, Joe Lieberman . . . who've actually had to wake up early to try to hammer this stuff out," he said.

To Senate staff members, who had been arriving for 7 a.m. negotiating sessions for weeks, it was a galling moment. Those morning sessions had attracted just three to four senators a side, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) recalled, each deeply involved in the issue. Obama was not one of them..."

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Sitting out is the only way to protest

It is absurd to TR this post.  Those who did it should be ashamed of themselves.  This is an opinion and the writer is entitled to it.  

by Montague 2008-05-26 03:24PM | 0 recs
it's absurd not to...

for the bland repetition of the oft-debunked "present" votes... for the complete falsehood regarding Lamont, and for the use of ad hominem argument.

"poser", "lurker" --- a commenter applying that type of rhetoric to Clinton... say "never made it out of the White House kitchen except to take false credit for her husband's work" - would be rightfully TRed to oblivion hereabouts. It contributes nothing to rational thought on the matter.

by Casuist 2008-05-26 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: it's absurd not to...

Disagree.  All people who choose a public/political life can expect to be judged lurkers, posers, or whatever by members of the public.  Nothing TR'able in that, IMO.  

There is a difference in "never made it out of the kitchen" because that is a sexist dig at women, but it's totally fair to make a claim that Hillary has tried to take false credit for Bill's work.  I would disagree with someone who said that, but I would acknowledge their right to that opinion.

If the commenter had written that Obama  was lurking around the corridors of power while he wasn't busy shining shoes, that would be racist and TR'able.  

by Montague 2008-05-26 04:07PM | 0 recs
if not the ad hominem

...the repetition of long-debunked talking points meant to distort the candidates record, when the poster is aware of the refutation is itself worthy of the downrate.

Suggesting the present votes makes Obama weak on pro-choice matters isn't an opinion, it's a lie.

Suggesting Obama didn't support Lamont in the general isn't an opinion, it's a lie.

by Casuist 2008-05-26 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: if not the ad hominem

Jeez, how do you folks live in the real world where you can't downrate and hide someone else's opinion and commentary?  The lie meme is so stupid as to be extremely tiresome.  How much black and white do you think there is in the world?  Your words suggest you think there is a fair amount, so I am forced to question your analytical ability.

This is the problem I find with people who say things like "Suggesting the present votes makes Obama weak on pro-choice matters isn't an opinion, it's a lie."   Everything is either/or.  This or that.  A or B.  Black or white.  No in-between, no grey area.

Life isn't like that.  Politics isn't like that.

by Montague 2008-05-26 06:48PM | 0 recs
actually, it is.

The present vote has the same procedural effect as the no vote, and the present vote was, by all reasonably measure, a pro-choice position. To state otherwise it no a matter of opinion- it is demonstrably false.

Truth is not a matter of opinion. Either he voted pro-choice or he did not. He did. This doesn't become debatable when politically convenient. . The real world doesn't work like that.

by Casuist 2008-05-26 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Sitting out is the only way to protest

He has destroyed any improvements in race relations since 1960?

I didnt' realize we had returned to segregation in the last several months, or that there were riots in Newark, or freedom rides, or young civile rights workers being murdered, or governors refusing to follow the orders of a federal court.

You may or may not be a lawyer, but you are definitely an idiot.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-26 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Sitting out is the only way to protest

"Plus, he has destroyed any improvements we have made in race relations since 1960."

HHmmmm.....  Race riots in the 60s.....and a black man running for President and having a chance to win in 2008.

Congratulations.  You've authored the most historically asinine thing I've read this morning.

by Coach Jay 2008-05-27 02:37AM | 0 recs
Re: I cannot vote for McCain OR Obama.

Then you are irrelevant.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-26 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: I will vote for the good of my country.

You'd rather hand over the SC to the lunatic right wing for the next 30 years than vote for Barack Obama?

You're nuts.

by Deadalus 2008-05-26 10:10AM | 0 recs
And you're brainwashed.

If the Dems win downticket, President McCain will not get his way with Supreme nominations.

Unless, of course, Congressional Dems continue to be as spineless and faceless as Senator Obama has been in the senate.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: And you're brainwashed.

What leadership has HRC shown in the Senate?  At least Obama didn't vote for Kyl-Lieberman.

by leftneck 2008-05-26 11:56AM | 0 recs
Have a good day.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 11:59AM | 0 recs
Move along folks! Nothing to see here.

Just another spiteful troll.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-26 10:12AM | 0 recs
Just another intelligent Obama Fan

above...as always, a no thinking zone!

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 10:17AM | 0 recs
Without being personal?

Are you having some problem with your law practice, CoyoteCreek? I keep on bumping into you on these threads, and you just seem to feed on nasty arguments.

I get the need for an adversarial law system, but this is unpaid, unsolicited, and I've never seen you persuade anyone. Your tone is always aggressive, ad hominem and looking for a quick emotional hit. You must know that this only hardens other people's opinions, and reasonable debate is lost in defensive anger.

But this seems to be what you want, and I'm just waiting for the insults to fly in response to this comment. Fair enough.

But a professional psychologist might have a lot to say about this. You're always saying "Obama's friends/supporters are to blame". Do you need some love from us or something? I feel a lot of transference in the air. Maybe we all can give you a hug and sing kumbaya or something.

Certainly beats trying to have any kind of reasonable debate with you.

by duende 2008-05-26 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: We're not buying it. You all have

IT WILL BE YOUR HANDS

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. You can also convince yourself that Iraq still has WMD's, too.

by Massadonious 2008-05-26 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: We're not buying it. You all have

Jeepers, you shore scared this lemming!  Scared me enough to remember John Gielgud in Arthur:

I'm sure you're right.  On the other hand, go fuck yourself.

by deminva 2008-05-26 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: We're not buying it. You all have

OK: About BO supposedly not nominating a pro-choice supreme.  Where does that come from?  

by redwoodsummer 2008-05-26 10:56AM | 0 recs
He has been very very waffly on

making strong pro-choice statements and votes.  AND, the Supremes will be one of those areas where he will think he can play "let's all get along" with the Repugs.  Remember...he voted for Bush's choices.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: He has been very very waffly on

That's not true.  Obama voted Nay for both Roberts and Alito.  Does it bother you at all that your beliefs are based on misinformation?

http://www.c-span.org/congress/roberts_s enate.asp

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro ll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?con gress=109&session=2&vote=00002

by map 2008-05-26 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: He has been very very waffly on

Map, re-check your citations.  He voted for Roberts and against Alito.  Same with Clinton.  Which happens to be consistent with my contention that the idealogical divide between the two is almost non-existent.

I do prefer Hillary on healthcare, and would might give here the edge on energy as well.

At the end of the day, I'd be happy with either of them.

CC, if you have anything substantial on these supposed vast differences between the candidates on the policy front, I'm all ears.  Please provide citations.  I've been looking for a long time myself, and I just don't see much of a difference.

by redwoodsummer 2008-05-26 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: He has been very very waffly on

Map, I apologize.  The C-Span link populates weird on Firefox, and the votes column is not aligned with the names column, so it looked like Clinton and Obama were both voted Y.  I see now that Obama and Clinton both duly voted no on Roberts.

by redwoodsummer 2008-05-26 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: He has been very very waffly on

This is the elephant in the room in this primary, and great silent majority are the people who realize it.  Neither HRC nor Obama supporters--or, at least the more strident ones--want to admit how similar their records and positions are.

by leftneck 2008-05-26 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: He has been very very waffly on

This is the elephant in the room in this primary, and great silent majority are the people who realize it.  Neither HRC nor Obama supporters--or, at least the more strident ones--want to admit how similar their records and positions are.
As I've said before, I wasn't a strong supporter of either candidate, though I viewed them both as acceptable alternatives to Edwards.  

But for all three of them: Clinton, Obama, Edwards: they have a Senate record which, to me, is largely center-left.  None comes with really strong anti-corporate credentials in the Senate (their campaign rhetoric is a different story entirely) and all are good (but not perfect) when it comes to the issues that are most important to me: health care, civil liberties.  

But all three have made votes I really dislike and all three have done things which disappointed me.

So, for me, it really was about who was most likely to win come November.  Edwards was my favorite, but he just never made it out the gate.  I still think he would have been a formidable candidate in the general election, had we chosen to support him, but that wasn't going to happen.

So I watched the way that Clinton and Obama campaigned, and I watched Obama get hit time and time again with some sort of really nasty attack and thought "well, that's what the Republicans will do, so let's see how he responds."

But what really got me to his side was watching Clinton unknowingly give him an out in the Ohio debate.

Russert tried to press him on Farrakhan.  And he responded poorly.  It was sloppy and he meandered and rambled and I was thinking "well that's kind of unfortunate."  

And I thought "If Clinton knows what's good for her, she can come out of this debate really strong by slapping Russert down on this line."  It was the perfect opportunity for her to show Obama up by attacking Russert on his behalf.  It would have made Russert look like a fool, Obama look like he didn't know how to defend himself, and Clinton look like the mature one in the room.

But she didn't do that.  And this isn't about morals or ethics.  I know enough to know that campaigns aren't won or lost on that.  This is about competence.  Instead of doing that, she went on the attack on a stupid line of attack and took enough focus off of Obama that it gave him time to think it through and come up with an absolutely perfect response which made the audience laugh and made Clinton look small.  

That's when I knew she wasn't going to win this thing, even if it helped her in Ohio, even if it helped her with the four upcoming states: it showed me that she thinks her strongest card is to attack, and that only works if the person she's attacking isn't charming.  McCain, for all his faults, is charming.  

He's horrible, and would be hideous for this country, but he and Huckabee are the two Republicans who scared me for November because they're both self-effacing, charming, and funny.  Never underestimate the power of that: it makes being on the side of evil a lot more palatable.

So really, my decision process approach is probably a bit odd, but it works for me.  I picked the candidate whom I thought knew how to win elections and win debates because I knew that their positions on the issues were close enough that they would both please me greatly at some points and piss me off in major ways at others.

But what do I know.  I thought Edwards would win Iowa :)

by juliewolf 2008-05-26 12:34PM | 0 recs
Re: He has been very very waffly on

It's not strange at all, it's pretty much same path I've taken.  The only difference was that I've been against HRC from the start, not for any fault of her own but because I felt, and still feel, she was the weakest of all of our candidates.  I agree that Edwards probably would have been the best choice, although I've warmed up to Obama more and more; not only am I impressed with his campaigning and his personal intelligence and honesty, but also because of the message that electing a black guy with a funny name in the wake of Bush would send to history--it's the next best thing to impeachment.

Of course, if I'd known it was going to be McCain, I may have been with Obama from the start.  I think he's perfect to take on McCain--the age/appearance differences, Obama's consistency versus McCain's waffling, and Obama's focus on the war will all be very difficult to McCain to overcome.  Plus, I think Obama's is weakest against overly wonky candidates (I actually think that barring the straight-out-of-Mark-Penn's-playbook lines that she'd throw out from time to time, HRC was generally stronger in the debates), and McCain is hardly a wonk.

by leftneck 2008-05-26 01:26PM | 0 recs
pure propaganda, CC

CC - do you also believe that Obama is a Muslim? Stop spreading lies. If you can't advocate for your candidate without lying you're a disgrace to the process.

The only different between Obama and Hillary on SCOTUS is that Hillary would be on Obama's short list.

by obsessed 2008-05-26 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: We're not buying it. You all have

You Cyotee creek are a comlete and utter tosser. You are deluded and a cult memeber pure and simple.

by telfishbackagain 2008-05-26 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: We're not buying it. You all have

If you dont know that he would appoint pro choice supremes how did he get the endorsement of NARAL?   His record is 100% pro choice.

by realistdem 2008-05-26 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Wow, great points. And way to go on the message.

by telfishbackagain 2008-05-26 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

I'd rate this a 30 if I could.

by auronrenouille 2008-05-26 03:51PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

You realize that Obama's chances of winning the nomination are exceedingly good.
Yes.
You assert that you will support the nominee "whoever it may be", and obviously expect that Hillary supporters will be obliged to do so, no matter how Obama, his campaign, and his supporters might slime her and them from now until June.
And vice versa.  I fully expect Obama supporters to to promote a candidacy even if she were to maneuver herself into obtaining the nomination.
That all sounds really, really sincere of you, doesn't it?
I don't care how it sounds.  I've said it before and I'll say it again: if Clinton becomes the nominee, I will donate money to her campaign.  I won't like it, but I'll do it.

Clinton wasn't my first choice.  Obama wasn't my first choice.  My first choice is out of play.  I'm still disappointed by that.  But I'm willing to let it go because I care more about my country than my ego.

How about you?

by juliewolf 2008-05-26 10:17AM | 0 recs
Obama didn't care more for his country...

than his ego.  If he had, he would have done his time in the Senate and gotten some experience before deciding that he is now entitled to a promotion...when he clearly is not experienced enough to handle the job.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama didn't care more for his country...

Obama has not decided that he's "entitled" to anything. He has fought hard for the nomination and earned it by beating Hillary in the primary.

It's funny to hear you complain about entitlement, since what you wrote above basically amounts to "It's not his turn."

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-26 11:54AM | 0 recs
BO did not earn the presidency because

of this campaign.  You need qualifications for the job before you declare yourself a candidate.

He has/had no qualificaitons.  In order to win this nomination he and his campaign have gamed the system - with the help of a wing of the Democratic Party that has hated everything Clinton since 1992.

Wow - great "winner".  Great candidate for the most important job in the world.

I.  Don't.  Think.  So.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: BO did not earn the presidency because

Obama did not "game the system." He beat Hillary fair and square.

As for qualifications, he's been in the Senate four years. Hillary has for eight. Not a big difference.

And finally, stop with the TR abuse.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-26 12:12PM | 0 recs
What TR abuse?

Obama started campaigning for POTUS actually before he won his "tough" senate campaign - he sent people up to Iowa a month or so before the 2004 election.

Although, of course, he was wooing his fan base with hopeful and change laden comments like "it would be foolish for anyone to think they could be POTUS when they first enter the senate...I feel the same way."

I guess that makes him...a liar?

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: What TR abuse?

Obama started campaigning for POTUS actually before he won his "tough" senate campaign - he sent people up to Iowa a month or so before the 2004 election.

Source?

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-26 12:31PM | 0 recs
I'll try and find it and post it.

That was news about 1 1/2 months ago.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 12:41PM | 0 recs
OK - here's your cite:

From Salon, April, 2008:

"When did Obama start running for president?

Kudos to the Politico's Ben Smith for apparently piecing together an interesting puzzle and reporting that Barack Obama may have begun to make early moves toward a presidential campaign as early as 2004, before he was elected to the Senate.

Smith noticed this sentence from a story that ran in the Wall Street Journal last week: "By the end of the [2004] campaign, his aides were sending workers into Iowa, the first Presidential caucus state, to begin developing contacts among Democrats there, according to Al Kindle, an Obama campaign aide at the time."

From there, Smith fleshed out the story, talking to Kindle, who "said there had been outreach to Iowa and, he said, Wisconsin, with a possible presidential campaign among the aims." Smith also quotes Kindle as saying, "As he was planning his prominence in the Senate, there was a need to begin to extend those coattails, so neighborhing states were critical -- and if in the future [the presidency] was ever going to be a possibility, those states were going to be critical."

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: OK - here's your cite:

You do realize that that's a far cry from campaigning for POTUS like you said he did, right?

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-26 03:41PM | 0 recs
Here it is! March 24, 2008

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/03/23/AR2008032301706_ pf.html

"After weeks of arduous negotiations, on April 6, 2006, a bipartisan group of senators burst out of the "President's Room," just off the Senate chamber, with a deal on new immigration policy.

As the half-dozen senators -- including John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) -- headed to announce their plan, they met Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who made a request common when Capitol Hill news conferences are in the offing: "Hey, guys, can I come along?" And when Obama went before the microphones, he was generous with his list of senators to congratulate -- a list that included himself.

"I want to cite Lindsey Graham, Sam Brownback, Mel Martinez, Ken Salazar, myself, Dick Durbin, Joe Lieberman . . . who've actually had to wake up early to try to hammer this stuff out," he said.

To Senate staff members, who had been arriving for 7 a.m. negotiating sessions for weeks, it was a galling moment. Those morning sessions had attracted just three to four senators a side, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) recalled, each deeply involved in the issue. Obama was not one of them..."

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 12:57PM | 0 recs
Sorry - wrong post with your comment.

I'll find yours.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: What TR abuse?

Oh come on.  Hillary has been campaigning for President for 35 years.

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-26 06:45PM | 0 recs
So since Hillary has royal blood ...

... she's next in the line of succession, while Obama is a half-breed pretender to the throne?

Is that what you're getting at?

by obsessed 2008-05-26 11:58AM | 0 recs
You're a very sick person.

I made no such statement or suggestion.

by CoyoteCreek 2008-05-26 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama didn't care more for his country...

You are so right.  

by trixta 2008-05-26 09:50PM | 0 recs
When the call for unity comes from Hillary...

... is that sincere enough for you?

Just wondering.

by protothad 2008-05-26 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

I will swear to give my vote my time and my energies to defeat the Republicans up and down the ticket regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination.

by xdem 2008-05-26 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal
I fully agree. I won't vote but I think this is the right way to approach the question.
by french imp 2008-05-26 09:40AM | 0 recs
very reasonable proposal

and thank you for this.  I am glad to see that some people will understand that a win for either Obama or Clinton will be a "clean" win--neither one is going to steal the election.  

With MI and FL worked out, and the remaining contests, this should be a clear matter for the supers to decide what is best for the party and the country, and not what is best for themselves or their fundraising efforts.

by 4justice 2008-05-26 09:46AM | 0 recs
nobody will have 2210 until August

by engels 2008-05-26 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Just like the Republicans

Nobody will have 1,191 until September.  Mike and Mitt, why did you drop out?

by Brad G 2008-05-26 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Just like the Republicans

They have more respect for their party than Hillary has for hers.

by Joe Beese 2008-05-26 10:04AM | 0 recs
Definition of support

I think if support solely means vote for and excludes persuade friends, relatives to vote for, volunteer for, donate money to, etc., and only pertains to the presidential nominee and not the DNC and other downticket candidates, I would be down with that.

by Brad G 2008-05-26 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Definition of support

I think if support solely means vote for and excludes persuade friends, relatives to vote for, volunteer for, donate money to, etc., and only pertains to the presidential nominee and not the DNC and other downticket candidates, I would be down with that.
I'll donate money for the general election to whichever candidate is the Democratic nominee.  

by juliewolf 2008-05-26 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

I will only support Barack Obama, because he's the only one who is going to be the nominee.

by Deadalus 2008-05-26 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

And supposing Hillary somehow gets it? Then what. You owe it to the ideals BO says he stands for to oppose McCain, and that means supporting her if she gets the nod.

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-05-26 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

I wont be too happy about it, but I would absolutely support her if she managed to wrangle the nomination.

My Democratic ideals and principals are 10000x more important than candidate loyalty.

It's a shame so many others don't feel the same way.

by Massadonious 2008-05-26 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Two words:  Supreme Court.

We cannot let John McCain near the White House.

by Deadalus 2008-05-26 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

So you agree? If Hillary gets the nod you'll fight your heart out for her? Good. Very very good. I don't care if the convention ends up brokered and our nominee is Mark Penn, McCain has to be opposed!

(Actually, that would really suck, but if he was anti-war, and would appoint progressive justices, I'd grit my teeth and work to see him win)

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-05-26 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Of course I agree, but it's silly at this point.  Barack will be the nominee.

Now you did manage to come up with someone who I wouldn't support--Mark Penn.

Then I'd see no material difference between him and McCain and would just vote down ballot.

by Deadalus 2008-05-26 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Nope Mark Penn would not get my vote... then again he probably isn't a Democrat.

by JDF 2008-05-26 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

As long as Mark Penn isn't his own strategist. What a terrible campaign that would be!

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-26 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Hey CC..
"So if there's any blood on anyone's hands"

Every yea vote has bloody hands
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro ll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?con gress=107&vote=00237&session=2

by nogo postal 2008-05-26 10:49AM | 0 recs
After the convention...

...we'll have a nominee. If Obama wants to move forward until then as the presumptive nominee that's fine by me, too.

But, he won't be the official nominee of the Party until the Convention.

This is just fact. Again, Obama will NOT be the nominee of this Party on June 4th, July 4th or even August 4th, 2008. He'll be the presumptive nominee until the Convention. He'll be the likely nominee until the Convention. But, he won't be the nominee until the Convention.

Why do so many people have a problem with this basic reality?

Oh, and one more thing, Hillary Clinton won't be the loser in this race until the Convention, either...in all likelihood.

by bobswern 2008-05-26 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: After the convention...

Even though i am an Obama supporter, I wouldn't refer to Senator Clinton as the loser. The word loser diminishes what she has accomplished and how hard she and her supporters have worked.

by feliks 2008-05-26 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: After the convention...

Why do presumptive nominees announce their VPs before the convention....because they are THE nominee.

by realistdem 2008-05-26 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Not I.

I will not vote for Obama UNLESS he is Hillary's VP or unless Hillary is his VP.

by nikkid 2008-05-26 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

So what are your issues? Not with Obama, I mean. What are your political issues? What do you care about and how would you like to see it handled?

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-05-26 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

I am not about issues - I am about the candidate.

My issue this year is all about Hillary.  I have been working as a volunteer on her campaign since Feb 2007 - so losing is not an option.

I will forgo all issues this year in an effort to get her nominated.

Should that not happen, then I will support McCain in hopes that Hillary will run again in 2012 (successfully).

At first this seemed quite appalling to me (to support McCain) and I thought I would simply write her name in on the ballot (and I still may do this). BUT - I have started to delve into WHAT McCain stands for and I actually don't HATE him as much as I thought I would - I HATE Obama more.

McCain's stand on immigration, campaign finance reform, global warming are all sort of in-sync with the dems. He believes that gay's should have some sort of legal rights.

I started to look at this entirely different than where I initially came from.

Because I feel as if the democratic party has ousted ME - as a woman, as a clinton supporter - from the party.  I'm now actually starting to think that those of us Hillary-supporters that move to McCain could actually FORCE the Republican party further to the middle.  Especially with Barr being a conservative and moving out of the party.

imo, obama and his group of dnc elite supporters will bring the party to the far-left. That's fine, but I don't think they will win.

My goal in life is to have Hillary Clinton as my President. I have wanted that for about 10 years now. I won't rest until she is.

by nikkid 2008-05-26 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

I am not about issues - I am about the candidate ... My goal in life is to have Hillary Clinton as my President.

So it's a cult of personality then? You're saying that you want Hillary to be President and you wouldn't care if she (like McCain, and unlike Obama) was going to:

  • appointed a SCOTUS that would overturn Roe vs. Wade?
  • nuke Iran?
  • privatize everything that's not already privatized?
  • represent lobbyists and billion dollar corporations rather than hard-working Americans?
  • continue the ridiculous embargo against Cuba?
  • continue the policy of torture, illegal spying on American citizens, undermining of checks and balances, and undermining the separation of church and state?
  • oppose net neutrality?

Or to put it another way, you'd be willing to sacrifice every one of those issues in order to give Hillary a chance to be elected in 2012 rather than 2016?

by obsessed 2008-05-26 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Let's be clear. If McCain wins he will got the WH with a FULL Democratic congress that will have enough to overturn any veteo.

He will not be able to appoint judges that overturn roevwade because they will not get through the dem congress.

If roe v wade was not overturned in the past 8years under the MOST CONSERVATIVE pres and congress in our history - then it surely won't be overturned with a more mainstream republican and full democratic congress. Everyone likes to threaten this - but if it was overturned than we would have to spend billions on new prisons to house all the women and doctors we will throw in jail....

Maybe you haven't heard - McCain is AGAINST torture (since he was tortured).

I'm not about to stick up FOR McCain on this website because there is no doubt I disagree with him on MANY issues. The war is ONE of those issues.

However, my disagreements with him on many issues do not override my disgust of Obama and my preference to see Hillary Clinton as President.

If you want to call it a "cult" personality - I'm okay with that...I don't really care.

by nikkid 2008-05-26 12:06PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

The status of Roe v Wade is not up to the Congress and President. It's up to the Supreme Court. He will be able to appoint the Judges he likes because thus far the Democratic congress has not been particularly good about standing up to the Republican Executive branch.

Further, we're looking at another rotation in 2 years.

--

As for torture, McCain's stance has been slipping ever since his comeback. At this point he's down to "We must not torture US Citizens" and he's waffling on waterboarding. Very different from the old hardline "No torture under any circumstances."

--

Then there's the continuing war. Again, I'll ask you: why do you love Hillary so much? Not a criticism, just a question. If you're not an issue voter, what is it about her that you feel so passionately about?

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-05-26 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

You and I both know what it is...but neither of us will say it.

by JDF 2008-05-26 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Does it rhyme with Smagina?  Or Zuterus?  Or Bovaries?

Whatever, if she's voting HRC solely because she's a female, then so be it.  If she's going to vote McCain instead, or abstain altogether, so be that too.  Everyone has the right to be narrow minded.  God bless America.

by fogiv 2008-05-26 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

It's a tricky troll task isn't it Nikki (or is it Nick?) You have to play on feminism in order to create enough anger for a protest vote while whitewashing the anti-feminist qualities of John McCain, who:

  • cheats on his wife
  • calls her a c#$%
  • lives off of her money

... and is chomping at the bit to appoint the lynch pin Supreme Court Justice who will form the rock-solid majority (with Roberts, the Itos and sexist extraordinaire Clarence Thomas) that sets women's rights back more than 50 years ... and I'm not talking only about reproductive rights.

by obsessed 2008-05-27 02:51AM | 0 recs
Pretty much all wrong.

Aside from your misplaced faith in a strong Democratic opposition to McCain's picks, remember that they can only confirm nominees, not select them.  The President holds most of the cards on the SCOTUS.

And vetoes are overriden, not overturned.  We might possibly get 60 seats in the Senate, but they'res no way in hell we're getting 67 Senate seats and 282 House Seats.  Not to mention the President is the CinC.  The easiest threshold for making Republicans irrevant is the Presidency, a bare majority in the House and 60 Senate seats.  Then they couldn't stop anything.

I don't even mind your voting out of spite.  I'm sure there are many more Indies and even Repubs who like Democratic positions but are more disgusted with Clinton than you are with Obama.

by corph 2008-05-26 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

BUT - I have started to delve into WHAT McCain stands for and I actually don't HATE him as much as I thought I would - I HATE Obama more.

Well, thank you for being honest, at least.

If you are voting based on hate, you will be right at home in the Republican party.

by Angry White Democrat 2008-05-26 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Fascinating. So why does Hillary have this much loyalty from you if not for her stance on issues?

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-05-26 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

it is for her life work as a democrat. Issues? Yes. But she is much, much more than an Issue.

She is my sHero.

by nikkid 2008-05-26 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Which work though? That's my question. It's perfectly cool to love Hillary, but I want to know why. If her long-term work is important to you, it has to be because you care about some of the things that work was applied to. I'm just wondering which things in particular.

by warmwaterpenguin 2008-05-26 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Women's Rights are Human Rights.

Standing up ALWAYS for Women's rights.

Children's Defense Fund.

Judiciary Board to impeach Nixon.

Board of Education/Arkansas.

Universal Healthcare.

First First Lady to take an active, public role in her husbands Presidency.

First First Lady to testify.

Constant attacks - I use to think by only Republicans, now I see it's by elite dems as well.

The Fighter: for the poor, for the working class and YES for African-Americans (even though they don't appreciate it).

by nikkid 2008-05-26 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal
One think I don't understand though. You said you would vote for the nominee if the ticket is Obama/Clinton. So you're ready to vote for Obama as president. But you say you hate him and you prefer McCain. Are you aware that the powers of the VP are very limited? I don't really get you.
by french imp 2008-05-26 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

I love Hillary Clinton, so I will vote for her. If she is the VP then I am voting for HER - in my mind she will be MY president...the fact that BO will have the name Pres will be meaningless to me....my vote will be cast for HER.

by nikkid 2008-05-26 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

And if she's not on the ticket but asks you to vote for him?

by french imp 2008-05-27 04:41AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Universal Health care - Obama shares your candidates' positions, McCain opposes.

Women's rights - Obama shares your candidates' positions, McCain opposes.

"The fighter.. for African-Americans (even though they don't appreciate it)."

Nice one there.  I'm getting an idea what your position is.

by reenactor 2008-05-26 09:12PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

WOW...

Don't get me wrong; I admire your loyalty to your hero and she is a fine hero to have and a wonderful Democrat to boot... I just wonder if you've ever accused an Obama supporter of "drinking the kool aid."

by JDF 2008-05-26 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Wow... sounds like a cult of personality

by CaptainMorgan 2008-05-26 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Nikkid, you make me pine for the days when public advocacy for a candidate was limited to the wearing of buttons and funny hats, and the only way you would be subjected to more of what the devoted actually thought was if you were stuck behind behind them in commute traffic in full display of the bumper stickers festooning their trunks and hatchbacks.

by redwoodsummer 2008-05-26 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

No, it's not all about Hillary.  For you, judging from what you wrote, it's all about you and your personal feelings.

Your choice.  Just don't pretend that it's not about your personal feelings.

by tibbs 2008-05-26 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

So I was with Howard Dean back when people thought that Howard Dean was a type of sausage.  After his infamous scream I went and had a beer and some ice cream and then donated innumerable hours to the Kerry campaign.  I still wish Dean would've won, and maybe he could've won the '04 election.  But he didn't, and I put the country before any kind of North Korean cult of personality.

"McCain's stand on immigration, campaign finance reform, global warming are all sort of in-sync with the dems. He believes that gay's should have some sort of legal rights."

Are you on drugs?  Seriously.  McCain from 2000 maybe, but McCain Version 2008 is way far afield on all of those positions.  His own campaign is trying to skirt his own law now!  Have you been watching the meltdown over there about lobbyists running his campaign?  He's compromised his principles for his last chance to run for president, which given the fact that he's a Republican, is what got him onto their ticket.

by auronrenouille 2008-05-26 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

nikkid--I agree. Hillary is the one.

Besides, McCain is not as scary as Dems are making him out to be.  Since he will be a one-term president, and since he has proven to work with the Dems, his presidency might be quite interesting-- especially if there is some payback for Bush and his ilk for any number of sins.  Given that both houses will hold clear Dem majorities, I think McCain will govern more to the center than expected.
 

by trixta 2008-05-26 10:09PM | 0 recs
are you a man?

i'm just wondering, because as a woman with working ovaries, mcsame scares the hell outta me.

but hey, who cares about my ovaries, right?  i mean, according to the republican party i'm just a baby making machine who should be at home baking cookies.

now if you'll excuse me, i have to go stock up on coathangers.

by annatopia 2008-05-27 05:10AM | 0 recs
Re: are you a man?

I prefer chocolate chip. :)

by MS01 Indie 2008-07-09 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal


You wrote:
"Should that not happen, then I will support McCain in hopes that Hillary will run again in 2012 (successfully)".

But this seems to run completely counter to what Hillary has said. Are you going to directly contradict Hillary's words and incurr the "grave error" (her words) of not voting for Senator Obama if he is the nominee?  


"Anybody who has ever voted for me or voted for Barack has much more in common in terms of what we want to see happen in our country and in the world with the other than they do with John McCain," Clinton said on CNN's "The Situation Room."

"I'm going to work my heart out for whoever our nominee is. Obviously, I'm still hoping to be that nominee, but I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that anyone who supported me ... understands what a grave error it would be not to vote for Sen. Obama."

Will you "work your heart out" alongside Hillary?

by gustavoNYC 2008-05-26 10:47PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Will you hold your breath until August too?

by Same As It Ever Was 2008-05-26 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Here here.  It's time to fight McCain instead of ourselves.

by rfahey22 2008-05-26 11:16AM | 0 recs
"Who's with me?"

Estoy contigo! Rec'd.

by obsessed 2008-05-26 11:35AM | 0 recs
With you all the way, Juliewolf

All fired up and ready to go!

Or, if you want...

Yes, we will.

Je suis avec toi.

by duende 2008-05-26 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: With you all the way, Juliewolf
Je suis avec Julie-la-Louve également. Mais, hélas, je ne vote point. Ce qui ne m'empêche pas de mettre mon grain de sel dans la conversation! Oui, nous pouvons. Possumus!
by french imp 2008-05-26 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: With you all the way, Juliewolf

Absolutment. Je ne peux pas voter aussi, parceque je suis Anglais. Mais ces elections sont tres importants pour tout le monde je crois, especialement les Europeans.

Pardonnez moi mon Francais affreux, mais c'est drole de parler avec un autre copain de la 'Vielle Europe' ici.

by duende 2008-05-26 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: With you all the way, Juliewolf
Votre français est excellent. Oui, c'est drôle.
Et c'est sympathique!
by french imp 2008-05-26 11:17PM | 0 recs
After all the passions of the primaries...

I can't wait until the General.  When we're united, we will be focusing all that energy on the Republicans.  I almost will feel sorry for the Republicans (if they hadn't done everything possible to destroy this country for the past eight years).  We will rip them a new asshole with the greatest of ease.  I just can't wait.

I have always and I will always pledge my support for the Democratic nominee.  Either Hillary or Barack will be miles ahead of McCain and Bush.  I will support the nominee, b/c I cannot stand this war.  We need to end it, b/c every minute we stay in that country is a tragedy.

by nklein 2008-05-26 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: After all the passions of the primaries...

Good luck with that. There will be some unity, but there will be a lot of anger and resentment too.

And frankly, I don't want to see the tactics used in the primary used against anyone ever again, Republicans or not. This whole season has been disturbing and disgusting.

by OrangeFur 2008-05-26 10:49PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

I can't wait until the General.  When we're united, we will be focusing all that energy on the Republicans.  I almost will feel sorry for the Republicans (if they hadn't done everything possible to destroy this country for the past eight years).  We will rip them a new asshole with the greatest of ease.  I just can't wait.

I really need to see these people taken down and I'm tired of the infighting about the nomination (I know I've contributed to it some, too, so this isn't an accusation towards anyone).

I used to really enjoy MyDD.  I look forward to the site getting back to being about electing a democrat, rather than taking one down.

by juliewolf 2008-05-26 12:18PM | 0 recs
To whom are you refering...

when you say "these people"?  I'm pretty sure you meant the Republicans, but I wasn't sure.  Could you please clarify for me?

by nklein 2008-05-26 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: To whom are you refering...

Since the original comment referenced Republicans, I think it's fairly obvious what I meant.  

by juliewolf 2008-05-26 02:22PM | 0 recs
I thought so...this is the problem with pronouns..

sometimes.  I thought you might have been talking about me and other people on this blog.  Sorry for the confusion.

by nklein 2008-05-26 02:43PM | 0 recs
agreed

by jkfp2004 2008-05-26 01:03PM | 0 recs
I'm with you!

I'm pulling the lever for the big D this fall!

by activatedbybush 2008-05-26 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Julie, as it turns out it looks like your simple proposal is not so simple after all.

AS a Hillary supporter, for all the reasons Nikki has and more, I will not make any pledges or agreements until

a.  Every primary and caucus is over, and every last vote is counted

and

b.  Florida and Michigan are properly seated, and all their votes properly counted, too.

by dembluestates 2008-05-26 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

There's nothing "proper" about seating two states whose parties deliberately broke the rules.  The rules have been the same for 30 years.

No other state in previous years has been allowed to get away with it.  Why should they now?  

Oh, I forgot.  Because Hillary's changed her mind.  Now that it would help her to let them break the rules, she's for it.  She was only against it when she didn't know she was going to lose.

by tibbs 2008-05-26 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Tsk, tsk.

Why should we let the Florida GOP get away with messing up a Democratic Party process that could end up disenfranchising millions of Florida voters?

Because it would benefit Obama.

See what I mean, Julie?  It ain't gonna be simple.

by dembluestates 2008-05-26 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

LOL!  You obviously haven't seen the videos.

by tibbs 2008-05-26 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

demblue, it's a bad situation, but Hillary's solution ends up disenfranchising voters, too.  All those people in Florida who didn't vote because they were told that the primary wouldn't count would be disenfranchised.  

If Hillary argues that Obama should get zero delegates, she's disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of black voters in Michigan who would have voted for Obama if they had the chance.  And you can't say, sorry, it was Obama's fault for not putting himself on the ballot.  We're talking about the voting rights of African American citizens in Michigan, and they had no choice in the matter.

Also, Hillary's proposal is unfair and violates the due process rights of the 48 states who abided by the rules set by the DNC and didn't move up their primaries.  All the states had fair notice of the consequences of moving up their primaries.  48 states, D.C., and the U.S. territories all obeyed the rules.  Florida and Michigan did not.  To then reward Florida and Michigan for violating the rules is to punish all the other states who could have moved up their primaries but did not.  It would undermine the integrity of the political process and therefore deny voters in the other states due process of law.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-05-26 05:02PM | 0 recs
Actually, the votes are already counted...

... and certified.  The only issue now is in what proportion the delegates will be seated.  On one hand you have the argument that the people who voted must be respected, on the other you have the argument that the rules must be enforced.

It seems to me the best solution is somewhere in the middle.  Seat the delegates based on the actual vote, but give them half votes (per the recommended penalty in the DNC bylaws).  Enough of the 'uncommited' MI delegates have already stated their intention to vote for Obama, so even that sticking point is nearly a non-issue.

I expect something close to this is what will happen.  It respects both the voters and the rules.

by protothad 2008-05-26 02:17PM | 0 recs
OMG...this is unreal

You Clinton folks are so off-base on MI/FL it's nto even funny.

2004 - Terry McAuliffe tells Carl Levin that if he moves up MI primary, he'll strip them of all their delegates.  He seems to have changed his tune.

Fall 2007 - The DNC strips FL/MI of their delegates, with the support of Clinton supports at the DNC.  Hillary also publicly acknowledges that she'll abide by the parties rules, as all the other candidates did, and also declares that she understands those primaries will not count.

Dec. 2007 - Hillary predicts the race will be over on 2/5.  But it wasn't...and then she starts to lose, fails to compete in a number of states that are dismissed by the Clinton camp and changes her position on MI/FL.

You're missing a big factor on MI/FL and that is that no one's rights were infringed.  Party nominations are the province of the political parties; they don't even have to have a selection process for a nominee if they don't want to.  The party was well within its rights to do what it did.

We all knew for months that FL/MI weren't going to count.  And the Clinton camp didn't take up that fight until after 2/5, because before then, frankly, I don't think any of you considered for a moment that she could lose.  So it's a little more than convenient that all of this moral outrage has only emerged when it became absolutely necessary for her to have those two states.

I'd be more inclined to believe that the Clinton camp was sincere in its outrage had this been something you folks had been fighting for before it became a matter of political gain.  The simply fact is that this is a fight the Clinton camp should have picked up long before it did.  That delay belies the sincerity of your outrage.

For months, the Clinton camp was perfectly fine with not counting MI and FL.  Where was their outrage before 2/5?

by jaywillie 2008-05-26 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

dembluestates: "Julie, as it turns out it looks like your simple proposal is not so simple after all."

The proposal is quite simple - it's asking us to get over the Clinton/Obama rivalry and commit to unifying around the winning candidate to beat McCain.

Either you're willing to do this or not. Rather obviously, you're not.

I can only hope that you reconsider in the next few months. That is, unless you honestly would prefer McCain as President.

by laird 2008-05-26 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

dembluestates--Amen!  

by trixta 2008-05-26 10:12PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

I don't post here much anymore, but I'll take the pledge all the same.

by CLLGADEM 2008-05-26 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

I'm with you.  In fact, I already went there ahead of you!  

Since it's going to be Obama, I've decided to let myself feel some of the enthusiasm he generates.  It feels great.  

I've listened to his speeches, the major ones, and his stump speech.  Very impressive.  There's a spiritual quality to him that I find almost comforting.  He's obiously of very strong character, and is shows.  

I've read his much of his website, and I'm even reading his first book!  I'm impressed with his plans; though I don't know everything, and can't say with certainty they're the best ones, I can tell that he'll work with others to do the best they can in each area.  The Democratic platform is what counts.

It's just nuts the way people around here bash Obama.  What a waste of energy.  He wasn't my first choice, but he's a terrific candidate and we're lucky to have him.  He has many gifts, and if we capitalize on them, we'll win.  All of us.

by tibbs 2008-05-26 01:54PM | 0 recs
I'll sign up

Consider me a wholehearted supporter of this pledge.  Victory in November!

Peace

by protothad 2008-05-26 01:55PM | 0 recs
I'm in!

Let's unite.

by Populista 2008-05-26 02:20PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm in!

I agree, I am not Sen Clintons biggest fan. However I will vote, work for and contribute to whoever is the nominee for the party. Unity is strength.

by telfishbackagain 2008-05-26 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

A republican in the white house would be disaster, I'm supporting Obama. I've always been highly supportive of Clinton. I've never written a dairy despite years and years of commenting let alone a negative one. I have no frustration towards any candidate and I don't think I've ever mocked the other side.

This is a very even handed diary and I fully support the thought behind it. But I will not take this pledge, while I fully think that Obama (or, unlikely, Clinton) as a candidate will have my full support until the end, this pledge takes away any independency a supporter has. A blanket promise while not knowing what is to come is not right.

While I can't foresee any scenario that would make me break the promise now, it is a promise that I would break if intellectual honesty demanded it of me and as long as I don't know whether that would be the case, I cant make that promise.

by Ernst 2008-05-26 02:41PM | 0 recs
I'm on board

just like I always have been. Good to see it in writing from good Dems, though.

by bookish 2008-05-26 03:14PM | 0 recs
What she said.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-05-26 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Count me in. I am a Democrat, and I will vote the Democratic line in November. Period.

by ipsos 2008-05-26 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

I'm voting for Barack Obama.  Or Hillary Clinton.  Or both.

In any event, my one vote will be against John McCain.  Thus, I make my mark upon your fine pledge.

'nuff said.

by fogiv 2008-05-26 04:20PM | 0 recs
I'm not with you

I find your pledge disingenuous.

by Coldblue 2008-05-26 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not with you

Interesting that someone who feels so strongly about abolishing Roe v Wade, which is the DIRECT RESULT of not supporting the Dem Nominee posts on a Democratic site.  Perhaps another site would support your political beliefs better.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-26 06:27PM | 0 recs
Where do you get

Roe v Wade from my comment?

And just because I find the diarist to be opportunistic, I'm now labeled with having political beliefs that are not liberal?

I suggest that you find another site where the groupthink for Obama is more to your liking.

by Coldblue 2008-05-26 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Great Diary... I am with you.

by yitbos96bb 2008-05-26 06:25PM | 0 recs
I'm with you

The nominee has my vote!

by zmus 2008-05-26 07:18PM | 0 recs
What a refreshing diary

I'm in. It'd be nice to see MyDD focused on promoting DD again.

by laird 2008-05-26 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

I will vote for and donate to the Democratic nominee.  If it isn't the candidate I support, that will be hard to do.  But not as hard as what we've all lived through since November of 2000.

by femlaw 2008-05-26 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

I reserve the right to keep an open mind and evaluate the situation as it evolves. I decline to commit to limiting what views I may find myself holding in the future.

by OrangeFur 2008-05-26 10:52PM | 0 recs
Let me be a little blunt

To me, this diary feels a bit like when Bush told everyone that we have to come together after he won the 2004 election. After all, you know that Obama is the odds-on favorite to be the nominee, so you're essentially asking Clinton folks to join up without questions. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, but that's how it feels to me.

I'm a staunch Clinton supporter, and while my policy preferences are clearly aligned with either Obama or Clinton, my sensibilities have been deeply offended by the conduct of the Obama campaign. You cannot call my candidate a racist and insinuate that she's waiting around for Obama to be killed and expect me to support you without reservations.

I take no pleasure at all in my current alienation from the Democratic Party, as distinct from my allegiance to liberal values, to which I am as firmly committed as ever. It is in fact nearly heartbreaking. I came into this year expecting to be enthusiastic about our party as we completed the comeback we began in 2006 and restored honor to our government and our country. Instead I'm left with a sense of emptiness and anger at the way our party has behaved.

Before there's unity, there will have to be some reconciliation. I want to see a sincere recognition on the part of the Obama campaign about the terrible injustice that has been done to Hillary Clinton this campaign, both by them and the complicit media. Without that, unity will be hard to achieve.

by OrangeFur 2008-05-26 11:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Let me be a little blunt

I'm a staunch Clinton supporter, and while my policy preferences are clearly aligned with either Obama or Clinton, my sensibilities have been deeply offended by the conduct of the Obama campaign. You cannot call my candidate a racist and insinuate that she's waiting around for Obama to be killed and expect me to support you without reservations.
I didn't call your candidate a racist and I didn't insinuate that she's waiting around for Obama to be killed.  

Neither did the Obama campaign.  The Obama campaign, has, in fact, actively opposed both those things.

We can argue back and forth about which campaign behaved better or worse and who was treated fairly and/or unfairly by the media.  We can devote several weeks to deciding who owes whom an apology.  We can bicker back and forth about it and resent things.  There's certainly plenty of stuff done by both campaigns that pissed me off.

I just don't care any longer.  I know this is a dirty business, and I'm for defeating McCain, even if it's not the most pleasant thing in the world.  I'm still for supporting the Democratic Party come November, even if the candidate that's been chosen has really pissed me off during the primary (and yes, whomever it is, has really pissed me off during the primary.  That's a guarantee).

I don't need apologies.  I don't need to be coddled.

I need to see McCain lose.

I need to see Democrats get voted into office and Republicans thrown out, all over the map.

I need to see a future in which our Supreme Court will not be stacked with Scalitoroberthomases.  

I need to see a future in which we have a chance at reversing the tremendous damage done over the past eight years.

And that's really the reason I think of this as incredibly simple.

Think of me what you like.  Whether or not you think I'm posting this honestly or with ill intent is not the point.  This proposal is about us doing whatever we need to do to move forward.  Period.  I honestly don't care what it takes: therapy, a group sing-along, a whole lot of liquor, pharmaceutical intervention, a boggle tournament, a jam session, bonding over pro-wrestling, a Buffy the Vampire Slayer marathon.  Whatever.  

Do what you need to do to get ready to put things aside and defeat McCain.  

Then do it.

by juliewolf 2008-05-27 12:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Let me be a little blunt

I didn't mean "you" as you in particular, but as a general term. Replace "you" with "one" to make it clearer. I apologize for the confusion.

However, the Obama campaign did do those things. I'm sorry, but they did. Repeatedly. No reconciliation is going to happen until they take steps to address it.

It's possible that both sides are owed apologies. But that doesn't mean it's okay for either side not to offer it.

People want to be respected. For many people, that comes before almost everything else. It's why voters in middle America vote for Republicans even though Democrats are better for them economically. I agree with everything you said about policy. But the disrespect and viciousness shown to Hillary Clinton and her supporters needs to be addressed.

by OrangeFur 2008-05-27 10:13AM | 0 recs
let me be blunt, too

to quote bill clinton, who spoke at the harkin steak fry a few years ago (03, IIRC), regarding primary versus general election votes:

"First you fall in love, then you fall in line"

by annatopia 2008-05-27 05:14AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

if the FL/MI delegations are seated FAIRLY, and Hillary Clinton withdraws by 4 June, then fine. Otherwise stop pressuring her to drop-out; stop trying to preempt the nominating process which officially goes to the convention.

I find this diary to be a back-handed way to say it's over 4 June, and HRC backers need to fall in line based on the pledged delegate status (probably excluding FL/MI). Those aren't the rules, not in my book. Sorry.

by swissffun 2008-05-27 02:34AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Stop pressuring us to stop pressuring her.  I think it is good for the party for her to get the hell out of the race.  If you have a problem with that then tell me why I am wrong don't command me to be silent.  

by Blue Neponset 2008-05-27 05:03AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

you've got to be kidding with this ridiculous circular argument. stop pressuring you to stop pressuring her???? jeez.

by swissffun 2008-05-27 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

Provide a single reason why we should allow the process to drag out any further?  I know you are all fond of mentioning how Kennedy took Carter to the convention in 1980, but we LOST that election.  Not exactly the best precedent to follow.

by belicheat 2008-05-27 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: June 4, 2008: a simple proposal

1) because it's not decided who the nominee is. By many measures Obama isn't really the nominee in my book.

by swissffun 2008-05-27 12:15PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads